Saturday, June 04, 2011

Pope Benedict XVI urges Croatia to join the EU

It is very awkward timing. As Catholic Croatians are burning EU flags and parading banners reading ‘I love Croatia, not the EU’, and ‘Go away EU’, Pope Benedict XVI begins a two-day visit to this ‘Staunchly Catholic’ country to exhort it toward EU membership.

According to Professor Anton Tamarut of the Zagreb Catholic Faculty of Theology, ‘Some Catholics fear that by entering a big family of European people a part of our spiritual legacy, of everything that formed us throughout history ... will be lost’. For Drina Cavar, who heads the Catholic association Kristol Stol (Christ's Table), Croatia’s EU membership will sacrifice parts of its ‘independence and authenticity’.

However, Foreign Minister Gordan Jandrokovic said Pope Benedict's visit to Croatia, where 88 percent of the country's 4.4 million people are Roman Catholic, ‘shows a clear support for the Holy See to Coatia's EU entry’. In the defence of Christian Europe, the BBC observes that the Pope ‘has been a supporter of Croatia's bid to join the EU, which would add another devoutly Catholic nation to the bloc’.

It is a curiously blind religio-political fervour, considering how a fanatically secular EU is increasingly antithetical to much of what the Roman Catholic Church purports to stand for.

But the main problem for the Pope is that Croatians are still very angry at the conviction of their hero General Ante Gotovina for war crimes against Orthodox Serbs. He was sentenced to 24 years in prison by The Hague's International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia for his part in the systematic persecution, torture and murder of Serbs in the Krajina border region in 1995. Croatia’s first president Franjo Tudjman described such genocide ‘as a natural phenomenon commanded by the Almighty in defence of the only true faith’ (ie Roman Catholicism).

The BBC notes the ‘special relationship’ Croatia has ‘long had’ with the Vatican. In 1914, the Vatican gave her blessing to Austro-Hungarian attack on Serbia which initiated a mass pogrom against Serbs throughout Croatia and Bosnia. One can only wonder at the profound symbolism of the Pope’s decision to pay homage and pray at the tomb of Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac, who was put on the path to sainthood by Pope John Paul II for the suffering he endured under Yugoslavia's communist regime. Stepinac was Archbishop of Zagreb from 1937 to 1960, leading Croatia's church throughout World War II. He was subsequently accused of collaborating with Croatia's Nazi-allied rulers, for which he was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

It is difficult to grasp how a pope with first-hand experience of the evils of the Nazi era cannot see how the fanatical Catholicism of Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac and the fascist Ustashi under Ante Pavelic does not constitute the same kind of wickedness. Catholic bishops were seen blessing the arms of Croat recruits as they slaughtered Orthodox Serbs. Stepinac stands accused of remaining passively indifferent while 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 gypsies were systematically tortured and murdered in a holocaust which proportionally exceeded that perpetrated by Nazi Germany. For many, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac was complicit in this genocide and fanatically active in the persecution and forced conversion of Orthodox Serbs, often at gun point. He said in his diaries, ‘the (Orthodox) Schism is Europe’s greatest curse, almost greater than Protestantism. It knows no morals, principles, truth, justice or decency’.

There is a conspiracy of silence surrounding the history of fascist Croatia and her drive for ethnic and religious purity. Francis X Rocca may well wonder: ‘Given that a fanatical Catholicism was a basic component of the Ustashi ideology, and given the pope's own tangles with Nazism, it might seem odd if he doesn't address this ugly part of the country's history in some way.’

Serbian Orthodox bishops have written to the Pope protesting his visit to Zagreb: to them, Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac is every bit as guilty as General Ante Gotovina of crimes against humanity.

One wonders what political outrage and media furore would ensue if, within weeks of the guilty verdict against Ratko Mladić, an Orthodox religious leader visited Serbia and had the audacity to pay homage at the tomb of his genocidal inspiration.

84 Comments:

Another overtly anti-Catholic (mis)representation of history. A distorted account of a complex situation.

So another Catholic State might be joining the EU - not really a problem if it helps to restore Christian values, an aim of Vatican policy.

Just why is this "curiously blind religio-political fervour"? The EU is secular - so what?Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Poland are members, why not Croatia?

The summation of the history of the Balkans, Yugoslavia and Croatia, and the alleged crimes of Stepinac is simplistic, anti-Catholic and dishonest.

Stepinac objected to the persecution of Jews and Nazi laws, helped Jews and others to escape and criticized Ustase atrocities during World War II. He also publicly condemned the communist Yugoslav government after the war and its actions.

It was the communist Yugoslav authorities who indicted the Archbishop on multiple counts of war crimes and collaboration with the enemy during wartime.

The trial was a communist "show trial". In fact, the American Jewish Committee showed solidarity with him. He died as a result of poisoning by his communist captors.

Winston Churchill addressed the House of Commons on the subject of the trial, expressing "great sadness" at the result.

"[Stepinac] was one of the very rare men in Europe who raised his voice against the Nazis' tyranny at a time when it was very difficult and dangerous for him to do so."

"This trial was prepared in the political sphere. It was for the purpose of dividing the Catholic Church in Croatia from its leadership at the Vatican. Tito has openly expressed this purpose....The trial was not based on justice, but was an outrage on justice. Tito's regime has no interest in justice."

Stepinac said in his diaries, diaries the communist regime kept and used selectively at his trial.

"the (Orthodox) Schism is Europe’s greatest curse, almost greater than Protestantism. It knows no morals, principles, truth, justice or decency".

Perfectly entitled to hold this opinion. And the point of quoting it is?

Perhaps not so surprising to see the Pope so keen for all to enter the 'fold' of the E U .

Could this be some part of a plan for the Pope and the E U to forge a 'United Europe with 'Papal Authority'united with the EU Federal State.?

The Third Reich, like the EU, was an attempt to revive the Roman Empire. The higher strategy of the Vatican and the acquiescence of the Catholic Central Party had brought Hitler to power. Instrumental in this strategy were Reich Chancellor Franz von Papen and Papal Nuncio, Monsignor Pacelli, the future Pope Pius XII. Von Papen goes down in history as the man who obtained Hitler his two-thirds majority, signed the law which made him Head of State and was also responsible for the enormously important Concordat with the Church of Rome in 1933. He declared, “the Third Reich is the first power in the world to put into practice the lofty principles of the Papacy.” Incredibly, given his responsibility for Nazi atrocities, he was acquitted at Nuremberg and later became Papal Chamberlain to Pope John XXIII. Pacelli, as Pope Pius XII, became notorious for his silence with regard to the Holocaust and the other appalling crimes committed by the Fascists in Europe.

Nothing smells like Proddie propaganda in the morning. It was the Protestant regions of Germany that voted Nazi, not the Catholic ones. Everyone alas thought they could handle Hitler, and the Catholic politicians were no different (Zionists were in Berlin right upto 1936). Adolf outwitted them all. As to von Papen praising the Third Reich, even the normally perpicacious Winston Churchill wrote in praise of Hitler around the same time. In 1933, the extermination of the Jews and Roma lay some years into the future. During those years when the Nazis were consolidating their inexorable grip on power, it was the Roman Catholic Church of Blessed Clemens von Galen that consistently stood on the side of the of the hundreds of thousands feeble-mined, crippled, insane and children of mixed blood who were slated for destruction. Those whom as Nazis put only in possesion of "life unworthy of life" . Protestants who couldn't find their own a*se at that time now presume to piss on the RCC. Whiggish history remains one of the wonders of the world.

len said ..."The Third Reich, like the EU, was an attempt to revive the Roman Empire. The higher strategy of the Vatican and the acquiescence of the Catholic Central Party had brought Hitler to power."

You HAVE been (mis)reading Revelations!

Where is your EVIDENCE the rise of Nazism and the Third Reich was a Catholic inspired strategy?

Do read a little bit more about Franz von Papen and his political apirations! They were certainly not Vatican led. He was playing a political game with the Nazi Party, not supporting them and like most who tried, failed.

After Pope Pius XI died in 1939, Pope Pius XII did NOT renew his honorary title of Papal Chamberlain. Pope John XXIII did restore the title in 1959.

Do stop trying to force 'history' into the confines of your scriptural understandings.

We need to pray that Europe will not be taken back to the state that it was in, spiritually and politically, during the Middle Ages. Roman Catholicism though outwardly and politically strong is inwardly and spiritually feeble. By her laws and ceremonies, her Bishops, Priests and laity are obliged to accept the system that recognizes the Pope as the universal “Sovereign Father” while denying the true Father and the Son. From its traditions, history, and crises, it is evident that it is an institution lacking the Gospel of grace in Christ, one that walks in darkness and in the shadow of death.It never ceases to amaze me how Catholics leap (mindlessly ) to the defence of Catholicism regardless of whatever the facts actually are.Bit like supporting your'home team' mentality I suppose.I can only assume that these 'Catholic supporters' are totally ignorant of the facts or part of the conspiracy.I would not be totally surprised that some time in the future(perhaps not that far into the future ) to see a link forged between Catholicism and Islam.A joining of forces.

Considering how Islam is so opposed to Christianity, we find it fascinating that the Vatican has included the Muslims in their plan of salvation (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], para. 841). Nearly 50 years ago, Roman Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen predicted that Islam would be converted to Catholicism "through a summoning of the Moslems to a veneration of the Mother of God." He reasoned, "The Koran...has many passages concerning the Blessed Virgin. First of all, the Koran believes in her Immaculate Conception and also in her Virgin Birth. Mary, then, is for the Moslems the true Sayyida, or Lady." More recently in a 1998 message to Islamic leaders, Pope John Paul II declared a unity of spirit already exists. He said, "There remains a spiritual bond which unites us and which we must strive to recognize and develop." At first glance, unity between Muslims and Catholics seems very unlikely but after a closer examination of the two religions we find much in common. Like Islam, Roman Catholicism has also offered spiritual inducements to those who put Christians to death. The Vatican offered plenary indulgences (the remission of punishment for sin) to those who killed "heretics." Those who died in such battles were offered immediate entrance into heaven.Strange as it might seem there a more than a few similarities between Islam and Catholicism.

Dodo, I have to agree with your earlier post on Stepinac (of whom I know little) based simply on the fact that Pope Benedict is a holy man of God, a renowned theologian and intellectual - at the minimum an equal of our own Archbishop Cranmer, and threfore one who will not pray at the tomb of a mass-murderer, for that would be an immense scandal and shame for all Catholics.

I am astonished at your deluded comments about Catholicism, Islam and about Europe. Utterly astonished!

Pope John Paul was referring to the belief in One God - the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the intention being to open dialogue. The belief being that the message of Christ is capable of reasoned and rational presentation. The references to Mary are also intended to open discussion. Didn't the Apostles use reasoned argument too?

The plenary indulgances you refer to go back to the time of the Crusades - long, long time ago.

1) "It is a curiously blind religio-political fervour, considering how a fanatically secular EU is increasingly antithetical to much of what the Roman Catholic Church purports to stand for."

As everyone knows, the bitter rivalry of Serbs and Croats in modern times has a long heritage, more ancient than the conquests of Saracens and Ottomans, and closely connected with the centuries old papal claim against his rival the Patriarch at Constantinople for jurisdiction over Illyria.

Even if the Schism actively caused, not passively suffered, by the papal authorities had been removed and full communion had been resumed long before Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac made that diary entry (" ‘the (Orthodox) Schism is Europe’s greatest curse, almost greater thanProtestantism)...' "), there is no certainty that the Serbian and Croatian populations would have felt less enmity between them. But could the priestsand bishops, and their ecclesiastical superiors have exercised a restraining influence on the peoples and their leaders and rulers?

And how is it among the peoples of western Europe a state of excommunication persists between the Church of Rome and others who accept the Nicene Creed as transmitted in the historic tradition in the centuries following the age of the Apostles, from bishops to priests and people?

It now seems quite likely that when Enoch Powell spoke of "rivers of blood" perhaps (among other things) the slaughters by Croats and Serbs (and Muslims) were not far from his mind (he and those he addressed in Parliament and out had knowledge of wartime events in the Balkans).

3) len said (15:40) "...would not be totally surprised ... to see a link forged between Catholicism and Islam." Perhaps not altogether far-fetched: compare that with a pamphlet widely distributed throughout Islam following Kaiser Wilhelm's speech in Constantinople in 1898 proclaiming him to be the Protector of Muslims everywhere. A link (or Concordat) between the Ruler at Vatican City and Islam (represented by...?), each party intent on furthering its own ends, could be more probable than the Kaiser's bombast, having regard to the precedents for Concordats of convenience, and the strange case of Mr Mugabe discussed at this Blogsite on Thursday. There are tangled webs and even more tangled webs.

"Catholic bishops were seen blessing the arms of Croat recruits as they slaughtered Orthodox Serbs. Stepinac stands accused of remaining passively indifferent while 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 gypsies were systematically tortured and murdered in a holocaust...

A serious charge indeed... Not doubting the word of HG but the evidence for this is where?

"Protestant" Christians remain so in today's world only by referral to absurd caricatures against which to protest. Their anti-catholicism is informed not by reason but by historical fetish, local pride and ultimately the instinct of survival. It's almost as if they would prefer a shared baptism in which there was more to divide than unite.

Happily for the Pope, their reach in Croatia as in the rest of the world is comparatively limited.

Anonymous (Ivan) said... "Dodo, I have to agree with your earlier post on Stepinac (of whom I know little) based simply on the fact that Pope Benedict is a holy man of God, a renowned theologian and intellectual - at the minimum an equal of our own Archbishop Cranmer, and threfore one who will not pray at the tomb of a mass-murderer, for that would be an immense scandal and shame for all Catholics."

Ivan are you being disingenuous? I do hope not. You really shouldn't agree without researching the historical record of Cardinal Stepinac. Mr AB Cranmer, renowned theologian or not, was, shall we say, a tad one-sided and 'economical with the truth'.

The Cardinal has never, to my knowledge, been accussed of being a mass-murderer. The Yugoslav Communist regime, in an attempt to undermine Catholicism, manufactured charges he was a Nazi collaborator. He wasn't! However, it can be conceeded the Cardinal was no lover of Orthodoxy or Protestantism - the history of those being a whole other ball-game.

In my experience, modern Popes tend not to behave in ways simply to appease public opinion and avoid scandal. They tend to do what they consider to be right in the eyes of God and for the preservation and spreading of the Faith. Sometimes lay Catholics wished they did!

Pious Catholic historian and author Bishop Frotheringham extended this summary of Christian leaders up to his time:"Many of the popes were men of the most abandoned lives. Some were magicians (occultists); others were noted for sedition, war, slaughter and profligacy of manners, for avarice and simony. Others were not even members of Christ, but the basest of criminals and enemies of all godliness. Some were children of their father, the Devil; most were men of blood; some were not even priests. Others were heretics. If the pope be a heretic, he is ipso facto no pope."(The Cradle of Christ, Bishop Frotheringham, 1877; see also Catholic Encyclopedia, xii, pp. 700-703, passim, published under the imprimatur of Archbishop Farley)

Pope John XII (Octavian, c. 937—964, pope 955—964, The Popes, A Concise Biographical History, ibid., pp. 166-7) was another in the succession of impious popes and he opened his inglorious career by invoking pagan gods and goddesses as he flung the dice in gambling sessions. He toasted Satan during a drinking spree and put his notorious mistress/prostitute Marcia in charge of his brothel in the Lateran Palace (Antapodosis, ibid.).

Mr Dodo, it is this communicant's understanding that the only parts of the Yugoslav Federation to fight the Nazis were the Orthodox provinces. The Catholic provinces of Croatia and Slovenia as well as the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo happily joined the Wehrmacht or the SS.

bluedog said... "Mr idzik @ 23.11, and yet it is the Roman Catholic Church which claims that the Anglican Church is not of the Apostolic Succession while accepting the Orthodox Church as such, despite the Schism."

bluedog,I'm not certain but I think the issue of Apostolic Succession is subject to ongoing discussion between Episcopalians and the Catholic Church. It's been dented somewhat by the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals. However, I think it might be a bit more complicated that you think and centers on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome i.e.the Pope.

Maybe an Anglican can assist.

There is also a fundamental difference between 'schism' because of a dispute over authority and a division due to 'heresy'. The early Anglican profession of faith was not judged 'heretical'. Nowadays, after centuries of 'protestant' influenece, the picture isn't quite so clear.

bluedog said... "Mr Dodo, it is this communicant's understanding that the only parts of the Yugoslav Federation to fight the Nazis were the Orthodox provinces. The Catholic provinces of Croatia and Slovenia as well as the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo happily joined the Wehrmacht or the SS.Look forward to your explanation of why this should be so."

You want a lesson in Balkan history now?!!

Firstly, there was no Yugoslav Republic at the start of WW11.

The answer to your question is: centuries of hatred between ethnic communities divided along religious grounds following membership of countless shifting empires.

Sometimes 'religion' when wedded to race and ethnic grouping leads to bloodshed.

Should Anglicans take any notice of what the Vatican's current position is on who is closest to shouting 'Bingo'? No. Does the Vat have to have an opinion on the subject? Probably. For me, I get more ecumenical and more fervently Christian with each new year, new child and dying relative. And let's face it: thunderbolts have yet to strike down either St Peter's or St Paul's.

For what it may be worth, I'm glad that a number of Anglican churches are hoovering up punters. And how wonderful that a Christian marriage got more viewers recently than the average FA cup final ..

I only chipped in just now to call a load of superior bilious sniping as I saw it. What was all that stuff about a house divided against itself ..?

His holiness pope Benedict cannot help but be drawn into dialogue with/about the EU, he must also ponder the secualrisation that eminates from it.

Your grace points out failings in churches behavoir , partial messages that take the sword and add another historic wound.

perhaps the real fear must be when jesus returns and those who have not followed his teachings are unable to see him.

As christians we must not be compartmentalised into reacting to one another ,that undermines what we all share as belief , wether orthodox , anglican , roman catholic or other , this cannot be right , the same jesus , the same apsotles the same holy spirit , and yet we fall foul on earthly rankings.

When pope Benedict visted the UK, I saw a man who loved the lord ,had studied scripture, who would share prayer , break bread ,kneel and pray with others who loved the lord.A pope who could see beyond office and garments for all fellow christians.

If we cannot ease our differences ,secuarlism will creep onward. A scriptural/spiritual unity binds us all and has done so since before churches were organised ,this is the truth and the light , evil will only be defeated ,when we are able to stand against the forces that seek to hide/destroy christianitys path to individuals salvation.Any church fails when it no longer keeps the new covenant , or no longer recites the word for its people to uphold the heavens ,in the midsts of mortal life and death.

Who can in truth say they own christ , when he resides within the individual and is corporate to the godhead by inclination to good ,having discerned free will . That in my view is the only corporate action we can say is true .

We should of course wish his holiness to do gods work and minister to those people to build them up in faith and perhaps perspective and some forgiveness would not go amiss in a region still troubled .

Why does the Church of Rome bug you so much? It is our common ancestry!

Yes I have read histories of the Popes and very troubling it is too. A record of human failure and shameful vice alongside great spiritual and Godly men. Balanced presentations include the great Popes.

I judge the Church by the preservation of the truth of the Gospels and by its dogma and doctrines.

Christ did not promise His Apostolic Church that it leaders would all be saints and above moral reproach. He hinted Hell would attack the Church and this attack would naturally come through men.

However, He did assure the Apostles the Holy Spirit would stay with the Church and that the 'Gates of Hell' would not prevail against it.

The Pope is Bavarian. The CSU is the fading dominant party in Bavaria, a Catholic "Christian Socialist Union" affiliated to Merkel's CDU which lobbied Kohl's Government to recognise Croatia as a splinter from the Yugoslav Federation as a Catholic state and precipitated the collapse of Yugoslavia.

That is probably the key to the matter but since this region is where the Ottoman Empire met the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russians dabbled through their proxies the Serbs; one cannot exclude complex motives

"Yes I have read histories of the Popes and very troubling it is too. A record of human failure and shameful vice alongside great spiritual and Godly men. Balanced presentations include the great Popes.

I judge the Church by the preservation of the truth of the Gospels and by its dogma and doctrines.

Christ did not promise His Apostolic Church that it leaders would all be saints and above moral reproach. He hinted Hell would attack the Church and this attack would naturally come through men.

However, He did assure the Apostles the Holy Spirit would stay with the Church and that the 'Gates of Hell' would not prevail against it."

Dodo,If the Church as it stands today( I include all denominations ) is the best that man can do I think it better that it did not exist at all!Christ spells this out in the letter to the Churches in 'Revelation'.

The Christian 'Church 'is a travesty of Christianity as I believe Jesus intended it to be.Whether this be Catholicism or the American' Bible bashing' prosperity preachers.Without the Holy Spirit leading and controlling the Christian Church it will remain corrupt, weak ,and defenceless against,the rising tide of aggressive secularism and Islam.The church need to repent of having lost its way and relied too much on human wisdom rather than the Holy Spirit which is the 'dunamis 'the power of God.

Popes are certainly not (all) saints - I understand the present one has his own private confessor, as of course he should.

Dante, though a devout Catholic, nethertheless put three of them in hell in l'inferno.

The problem with the RC Church is (partly) that it is far too legalistic - perhaps a legacy of the Roman Empire - in its definition of doctrine. The Orthodox, like the (former) CofE, are content with the creeds of the early Church. All else, while perhaps in some cases true, should never be defined as doctrine which has to be believed, as it is not necessary for salvation.

Yet the Pope's repeated emphasis that Europe must return to its Christian roots - or face extinction, let alone the possibility of salvation - should be supported by all who call themselves Christians.

All these "devoutly catholic nations" soon kick religion into touch when they smell the sickly aroma of the euro,in the wink of an eye,the irish,poles soon discarded scriptural requirements that prevented homosexual perverts from drowning thier societies in animal sexual gratification,in fact the only Christian organisation who honoured thier beliefs was the catholic adoption agencies in this country,still if you lay down with dogs ,you get fleas.

"The problem with the RC Church is (partly) that it is far too legalistic ... in its definition of doctrine. The Orthodox, like the (former) CofE, are content with the creeds of the early Church. All else ... should never be defined as doctrine which has to be believed, as it is not necessary for salvation."

That Mr Bede is pure protestantism!

All christians have a duty to know God, to love God and to serve God. Do we leave all this to limited and flawed individuals?

Look at the great divisions in understanding God and Christ, past and present, and tell me the consequences of leaving the resolutions to individuals.

Then the issues of today - divorce, homosexuality, ethenasia, abortion. All down to individual interpretations of scripture? I don't think so. Look what's happening to the Church of England. Should women be priests? Should practicing homosexuals? Is the Breaking of Bread trans or con substantiation?

Christ appointed the Apostles to 'loose' and 'bind' on earth, saying such would be 'loosed' and 'bound' in Heaven. They were given the authority to forgive and retain sin. What do this great commission mean?

These are not liberal, individualistic permissions to interpret as one pleases!

However, that does not mean is He a God we construct personally based on our own limitations.

Read: 1 Corintians 12 which sets out the vision of the early Apostolic Church.

"And God indeed has set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches."Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?"

There are plenty of references that confirm the fact that Roman Catholic priests not only blessed Ustasi mass murderers, but took part in the mass murder themselves. According to German and Italian accounts, some 750,000 Serbs were murdered, 30,000 Jews (30,000 more were shipped off to Auschwitz), and between 40,000 and 80,000 Roma/Gypsies (the numbers are unknown due to poor census records; however, it must be mentioned that Croatia and Bosnia today have an unusually low Roma population for the region, as this map attests, pointing to the effectiveness of the genocide):

Addiitonally, the Roman Catholic church took part in forced conversions of hundreds of thousands of Serbs who had to convert to Catholicism or else they were killed. There are even many instances of Serbs converting in 1941 and then being murdered (by Catholic priests and others) anyway in 1942.

Furthermore, here are two documentaries about how Roman Catholic clergymen engaged in extermination of Orthodox Christians and Jews (Roma were also murdered, but the religious component tended to be less significant, it was mostly racial):

These videos are shocking and contain eyewitness testimony of - among other things - nuns poisoning Serb children to death in the Jasenovac death camp and operating a special childrens' camp in Jastrebarsko.

The rot goes all the way to the very head, beyond Stepinac, to Eugenio Pacelli.

There are plenty of references that confirm the fact that Roman Catholic priests not only blessed Ustasi mass murderers, but took part in the mass murder themselves. According to German and Italian accounts, some 750,000 Serbs were murdered, 30,000 Jews (30,000 more were shipped off to Auschwitz), and between 40,000 and 80,000 Roma/Gypsies (the numbers are unknown due to poor census records; however, it must be mentioned that Croatia and Bosnia today have an unusually low Roma population for the region, as this map attests, pointing to the effectiveness of the genocide):

Addiitonally, the Roman Catholic church took part in forced conversions of hundreds of thousands of Serbs who had to convert to Catholicism or else they were killed. There are even many instances of Serbs converting in 1941 and then being murdered (by Catholic priests and others) anyway in 1942.

Furthermore, here are two documentaries about how Roman Catholic clergymen engaged in extermination of Orthodox Christians and Jews (Roma were also murdered, but the religious component tended to be less significant, it was mostly racial):

These videos are shocking and contain eyewitness testimony of - among other things - nuns poisoning Serb children to death in the Jasenovac death camp and operating a special childrens' camp in Jastrebarsko.

The rot goes all the way to the very head, beyond Stepinac, to Eugenio Pacelli.

v5, And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. v6, And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. v7, But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

All of which looks less than dirigiste and an invitation to find faith for oneself, which happens to be the Anglican way.

Mr Dodo - you do protest too much. Are the Orthodox Churches protestant? (They regard RCs as lapsed Orthodox). I share the traditional Catholic, Orthodox and (former) Anglican beliefs about morals and values - which all churches have ignored from time to time. And I have never believed that understanding the Faith should be left to the interpretation of individuals or individual churches, so that they can believe what they choose.

Bede, neither have I, 'I have never believed that understanding the Faith should be left to the interpretation of individuals or individual churches, so that they can believe what they choose.'(6 June 2011 11:50)

Surely this is the whole point of having Scripture, there might be minute differences in interpretation of scripture but the basic facts of scripture must be adhered to.I would agree with the Nicene Creed( First Council 325)This would probably be a good'rallying point 'for Christians .However all the later 'additions' drove in the wedge' between Catholics and Protestants.

Taken alongside the commission to the Apostles to forgive and retain sin and to loose and bind, sounds to me like God wants His church to have leadership:

"And God indeed has set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches."Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? DO ALL INTERPRET?"

Dodo,Yes God does want his Church to have leadership, it just the fact the Catholic church hasn`t got the right one.

Col. 1:16-20 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

The Reformers used the expression scriptura scripturam interpretatur, or ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ By this they meant that obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones. If the Bible is God’s Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of the Bible can contradict any other part. One divine Author, the Holy Spirit, inspired the whole Bible, so it has one marvelous, supernatural unity. The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly, or possibly both of them. The Holy Spirit does not disagree with himself. And the passages with obvious meanings should interpret the more arcane [obscure] ones. One should never build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text.(John MacArthur in his book Charismatic Chaos page 94)

We can agree on the above passage but not, I'm afraid, on your view that the Catholic Church has the wrong leadership. By this I'm assuming you mean the Pope has somehow replaced Christ.

I see from elsewhere you accept the Council of Nicene which confirmed the truth of the apostolic and catholic (universal)church.

If you can explain to me Christ's commission to St Peter and the Apostles to forgive and retain sin and to 'loose' and bind' on earth, then maybe I'll start to understand your position better. This commission, along with 1Corintians 12, just speaks to me of a church established by Christ, guided and led by the Holy Spirit, that is His representative on earth until His return. A visible and physical church.

Dodo,first off ,who has the 'keys'?'The living One has the keys of death and Hades" (Rev. 1:18). Jesus has the keys to death and Hades. Jesus has the power to say who goes to hell and who does not. The Pope claims that he has the keys. He does not. Only Christ Jesus has the keys. (From an article by Jacob Prasch, see below)..................................You might also find this article by Jacob Prasch on binding and loosing interesting;

If there were 750 000 Serbs killed in Independent State of Croatia how come that they were never listed by names neither there are any findings of their bones? And also, how can you explain that there were about 40 000 Serbs more in Croatia 1931 then in 1948 if Croatians killed 750 000 of them? What, they were making love like rabbits 3 years after the war or about 700 000 Serbs came from somewhere even such immigration was never recorded?!

Look, I know that you Serbs can sell your propaganda to Brits as your historical allies, but I just want to tell you that these fabrications of historical facts cannot be accepted by anyone normal and just half informed.

The pdf on binding and loosing, even accepting the questionable 'translations', is entirely consistent with Roman Catholic theology and does not contradict it, so far as I can tell.

Popes and Ecumenical Councils always use God's word to resolve doctrinal and dogmatic disputes and to teach and clarify christian faith.

No Pope has ever claimed to hold more authority than God! Popes, acting with the church, do claim authority direct from Christ to lead His church, to settle issues, to develop the faith in accordance with the needs of particular times and to guard against error.

To successfully criticise the Catholic Church and convince me of your position, you would have to show a doctrine or dogma that is contradicted by scripture. Not one where you question the Catholic interpretation, one where there is opposition.

My problem with 'Anglicanism' is that I don't really know what it stands for!

I have to say too that I believe there are substantial biblical reasons why clergy should be men - either celibate or in faithful marriages.

Now the 'High Church' I do find appealing but then that is closer to Rome than many liberal, modernist Roman Catholics. I find some of their services (yes, I attend from time)close to Catholic pre-Vatican 2 than current Roman Catholic services.

And O, the guilty secret, the frisson of a visit to an Anglican eucharist! Did you partake and then confess? Or was it a question of sitting at the back, wondering and watching. I have to agree about Anglican 'High Church', my own preferred destination. Makes the modern English Catholic Mass look very dumbed down and low Church.

I'm being partisan and sectarian in saying this, but I do find the Anglican priesthood far better educated and interesting to talk to than the Catholic priesthood, excepting of course my first cousin who is a Jesuit priest.

Gus: it's only the Serb victims that are controversial, as I understand. I can understand that you are not concerned with Jews and Gypsies, since they are not a politically relevant element in Croatia. As the Serbs are no longer one either, since their expulsion in 1991-1995, I wonder when you Croats will finally face the truth on their count as well?

Let me first say that the main reason why we cannot give you a "victim list" of Jasenovac victims is because records were poorly kept and many destroyed after the war. The vast majority of Jasenovac's victims were peasant Serbs, most of whom never entered the camp itself. They were taken to the Bosnian side of the Sava River and murdered in the killing fields of Donja Gradina with mallets, axes, and knives. Records are better for more educated and urban people and this is one of the reasons why Jewish records are the best. Conversely, Roma records are the worst but we know that the Roma were almost completely exterminated in Croatia.

Censuses are notoriously easy to tamper with and mis-extrapolate. Zerjavic was a Croatian economist who played this game. The trustworthiness of his "estimates" is demonstrated by how erroneous they were when they came to Bosnia 1992-1995. He consistently inflated Muslim and Croat casualties and minimized Serb casualties. When you compare it to the best figure of war dead we have currently (~100,000), along with its ethnic breakdown (~2/3 Muslim, ~1/4 Serb, and a small Croat remnant), the methodologically fiasco that is Zerjavic's "statistical method for Jasenovac" is obvious.

Why 750,000? Because this is the figure given by German and Italian sources. The Ustase bragged that they had killed 1 million Serbs, but the Italians and Germans said that this was most likely not true and that it was a figure of 700,000 or 750,000. Yad Vashem in Jerusalem puts the figure at 500,000 on some websites and 600,000 on others. Who would be better positioned to know the reality? German officers on the ground or Franjo Tudjman writing 40 years later?

No serious historian would assume that the only victims are those with a name on a victim list, because not even in the case of German camps - and Germans were far better at documentation than Croats - do we have complete lists of everyone who was killed in a particular camp.

Let me also reiterate that Jasenovac is not the only killing field of WWII in the region. There was a whole slew of other camps in which tens of thousands of Serbs and thousands of Jews were murdered on the territory of the NDH. Stara Gradiska was the camp who women and children were murdered, down the River Sava from Jasenovac. Sajmiste was on NDH territory and was used by Germans to wipe out Belgrade Jews and tens of thousands of Serbs; Ustase operated the camp and killed Bosnian Serbs in it for a while as well. Jadovno took the lives of ~40,000 Serbs and ~2000 Jews. There were also many local massacres that did not involve camps but took thousands or tens of thousands of lives: Garavice in Bihac, Susnjar in Sanski Most, Black Legion massacres at Visegrad, Drakulici-Motike-Sargovac in Banja Luka, not to mention all of the karst pits (jame) in which Croat Catholics and Muslims threw tens of thousands of Serbs, all the way from Kordun to Herzegovina.

There were no leftovers or bones found for those 750 000 murdered in Jasenovac other camps, there are just about 80 000 confirmed victims (which is also huge tragedy and for every possible conviction) of which 60% were Serbs, 40% were Jews, Roma and REBEL CROATS, there is no census which can confirm such story about 750 000 Serbs killed (in 1931. by census there were just 30 000 Serbs more in Croatia than in 1948.) but Serbs know better.

If there were 750 000 Serbs killed in Croatia, and after the war there was more than half a milion left, does that mean that there was about 1.5 milion Serbs before the WWII in Croatia? Sorry, but this theory is bullshit.

Let me be straight with you, I'm from a partisan family and my family members fought against fascist regime, but your serbian propaganda in which you add 5-10 imaginary victims to every true and tragical victim is just making every Croatian sick.

I agree with you: it is not easy being Serb. It is not easy being a member of a nation that experienced genocide in WWII and then was attacked again 50 years later by the same Catholic and Muslim thugs who were hellbent on killing and expelling them again. It is not an easy thing that - in contrast to the general knowledge of the Armenian genocide and Holocaust - almost no one outside of the Balkans knows about this.

It is not an easy fact that your god Ratzinger can so blithely lie through his teeth and say that Stepinac was a martyr even though priests who were his subordinates not only were force converting Serbs to Catholicism but also exterminating Serbs and Jews with their own hands: Franciscan priests with guns, knives, and clubs under their robes.

There are bones in Donja Gradina. But you are right: much of the evidence has been destroyed. The Ustase started exhuming corpses from Donja Gradina in 1944 and burning the remains. Countless thousands were murdered in the crematorium built by Hinko Picili, thousands more were thrown into the Dubica lime kilns, and countless thousands more were thrown into the Sava to flow towards the Belgrade "meat market."

So yes, we are in agreement, evidence is missing. The genocidal Croat Catholic perpetrators destroyed it. But evidence does remain. All we need is a massive exhumation of the hundreds of thousands buried in Donja Gradina. Identification will be impossible, but least we can count the number of victims.

I don't know why you insist on playing the fool here, but it is well known that the NDH included not only Croatia (of today) but Bosnia-Herzegovina and even the Srem region of Serbia. The number of Serbs living in the NDH was around 2 million or 1/3 of the population. And they were all targets of the genocidal Catholic policy of "convert a third, expel a third, and kill a third." In the end, most Serbs who fell into the clutches of the Ustase were killed.

My family (3 grandparents, including my grandmother) fought as Partisans also, but in Serbia, Bosnia, and Slovenia. And we had family friends who survived the genocide in Croatia: a Croat woman who as a girl saw Serb children taken into the Orthodox church by Catholic nuns and then saw blood flowing under the church door, a Serb doctor from Zagreb whose five year old daughter was killed on his dining room table by having her throat cut, etc.

You wheel out the same old tired cliches: Sufflay, Radic, etc. Are you saying Serbia and Serbs are guilty for the Ustase genocide? Are you actually arguing that the death of several Croatian politicians justifies genocide? In any case, if that were so, Croatia was free to deport the Serbs into Serbia: put them on trains and send them to Belgrade. That was done in early 1941, and also was done to Slovenians by the Nazis (my own Slovenian relatives were deported from Styria on cattle trains to Belgrade). However, the Catholic genocidalists couldn't satisfy their bloodlust by simply kicking Serbs out: they wanted to exercise their sadistic joy by murdering hundreds of thousands of them in an orgy of bloodshed.

And as regards Croatian politicians: nobody forced Croatia to join Yugoslavia in 1918. Your politicians chose to do that because they were afraid of Italian or Hungarian annexation and war reparations for being on the Austrian side in the war. But then they wanted to use Serbia as a launching pad that would get them territory in Dalmatia but then they would break away just like that. Your politicians - and your Catholic church - have been bottomfeeders from the days of Ante Starcevic, "the father of the nation," and the man who first put Croatian genocidal intentions towards Serbs and Jews in print.

I really don't wanna push this forward cause there is nothing that can be said what's going to turn this conversation in some other way. Two monologues do not make a dialogue.

Facts are that you Serbs do not have evidence for your claims (you admit it yourself), not in antropological findings, not in statistics (censuses before and after the war). So, everything you have is a greatserbian myth and idea which has put you in this position in which you are at the moment. My family members were partisans, many underaged, but they also never believed in your myths despite the fact that they didn't stand Pavelic regime.

Please, let's not go further with this cause you'll never accept that Serbian politics in Croatia during XIX. century which was regularly prohungarian in Slavonia and proitalian in Dalmatia and later in Karadjordjevic times when croatian political liders were slaughtered like sheep actually generated radical nationalism in croatian lines.

Serbian national idea always had pretensions on croatian soil, and croatian national idea always wanted our independant state. So, these two ideas were on the opposite sites from the beginning and both tried to take advantage in specific historical circumstances. Sadly, many many crimes were commited by representatives of both ideas, I don't deny crimes by croatian side, but I think that Serbians in general have a problem with chronology and accepting of their part of the guilt for the fact that they are no longer political factor in Croatia.

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)